>felix> And just Imagine the blank faces of your students when you
>felix> tell them about this curious CURRY SRFI that doesn't do currying.
>
>You're quoting me out of context here. There's a clear connection
>between SRFI 26 and currying which is easily explained and the
>intuition of which is easily grasped. It's one that occurred
>naturally to me, and it occurred naturally to Sebastian.
Yet it doesn't seem natural for all, or we wouldn't have this
discussion, right?
>It's your right to find it confusing or to find my arguments or Sebastian's
>weak. But until you can find a better name or better arguments to
>convince Sebastian, it's his right to put whatever he wants into SRFI
>26.
I don't claim the opposite. Actually there are tons of better names:
SECTION
because that's how other languages call it.
SPECIALIZE
PARTIAL-LAMBDA
PARTIAL-APPLY
because that's what it actually does.
_I
$
because that's at least abbreviating. Otherwise, why use this thing at all?
SRFI-26
FOOBAR
XYZ
because nobody will confuse it with something else.
SCHOENFINKELIZE
because that's so stupid that hopefully everybody will stay away from this. ;-)
See? Loads of alternatives, some of them even say what SRFI-26 is doing.
What's the goal of this SRFI? To abbreviate? Then use something
*really* short. To clarify? I *seriously* doubt that
(list-index (curry eq? <> x) foo)
is much clearer than
(list-index (lambda (y x) (eq? y x)) foo)
cheers,
felix